By the grouping and the lack of context, they say he conistently voted against gay marriage, which he clearly did. They also say he voted consistently against gay rights - and what would those gay rights be? Marriage, which they have singled out separately -s o they are effectively double counting.
Then you look further and he is being "marked down" for voting against an opposition amendment to the Queen's Speech - well of course he is - that is kind of how it works, etcetera etcetera etcetera
Yep it reflects how he voted. Are they actually double counting or just making 2 piles.
It's the same for every MP so it's actually a fair and resonable way of detailing the votes of all MP's.
Unless you think JRM is a progressive, inclusive and many other things which he clearly isn't.
perchypanther - MemberNot new.
Correct, English is not new and scots still isn't a language, but don't take my word for it; ask the people of Scotland:
A 2010 Scottish Government study of "public attitudes towards the Scots language" found that 64% of respondents "don't really think of Scots as a language"
🙂
[quote=mefty ]By the grouping and the lack of context, they say he conistently voted against gay marriage, which he clearly did. They also say he voted consistently against gay rights - and what would those gay rights be? Marriage, which they have singled out separately -s o they are effectively double counting.
I'm not sure what the problem is here - you're complaining that they're suggesting he is against gay marriage AND against gay rights. Is the problem that he isn't actually against one of those, or is there some more subtle issue I'm missing?
mefty - MemberThat theyworkforyou site doesn't half give a misleading impression - dreadful.
You mean its a factual account of his voting record which shows just what an unpleasant man he is but does not show him in the favourable light you would like?
Plenty of other equal rights issues have been voted on since he was elected
he is being "marked down" for voting against an opposition amendment
Marked down? who is using pejorative terms now. No marking down of anything - just a factual record of his voting patterns.
Let's not forget how polite he is folks.
They should reflect in their presentation that one is a subset of the other - not present two separate headings. Also where is the Modern Slavery Bill in the Human Rights stuff? Why isn't that included?
Also ignoring context makes much of the data misleading.
It is a good tool for finding speeches etc but its presentation of data is dependent upon the judgement of those who manage it and their judgement seems poor.
@perchy just like to say thank you most sincerely 🙂
As for learning Latin it's interesting and useful (to a spdegree) given how it was the basis for so many other languages. If you are academic and interested innlanguage and history its a worthwhile thung to study.
mefty - its simply a factual listing of how they voted. don't show toryboy in a good light tho does it - is that why you don't like it? It shows Rees Mogg to be a reactionary?
unpleasant man
Multiple millions of French turned out to demonstrate against same sex marriage. Does that make them unpleasant men, women and children ? What about the 38% of Irish who voted against it in their Referendum ?
[quote=jambalaya ]As for learning Latin it's interesting and useful (to a spdegree) given how it was the basis for so many other languages. If you are academic and interested innlanguage and history its a worthwhile thung to study.
As an academic pursuit I'm sure it is. I don't think anybody is suggesting there is anything wrong with learning Latin.
Correct, English is not new and scots still isn't a language, but don't take my word for it; ask the people of Scotland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50,000,000_Elvis_Fans_Can%27t_Be_Wrong
Jamba - its not one single issue - its the totality of his voting record that shows him to be odious.
scots still isn't a language
In which case, it would appear that i'm stappit fou o' keich
Yes Jambalaya, I consider those millions of compatriotes idiots
A bit like those who voted for Lepen,
Angela Merkel voted against gay marriage.
its simply a factual listing of how they voted
No it is not, a list of all the votes would be, but it is not that - it determines what should be counted under each heading, it decides what should be under the headings etc. When I first looked at it my immediate reaction was to wonder what other gay rights he had voted against other than gay marriage, so I drilled down. If I hadn't I would have been misled, simple as that.
Where is the Modern Slavery Bill?
pyoor, aye! 😆perchypanther - Member
scots still isn't a language
In which case, it would appear that i'm stappit fou o' keich
Hardly reactionary - Catholic, conservative and Conservative more like
What about the 38% of Irish who voted against it in their Referendum ?
Here you go again...
Amazing that 62% of those from what you call a "backward" country have come round to a more enlightened way of seeing the world isn't it?
Angela Merkel voted against gay marriage.
Yay...I'd have thought you'd be above a bit of whataboutery. Seems not.
Hardly reactionary - Catholic, conservative and Conservative more like
4 C's then?
[quote=teamhurtmore ]Hardly reactionary - Catholic, conservative and Conservative more like
tautology
No mefty, its not trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Different categories overlap, it doesn't claim that they don't. That you can't see past your own assumption of what that site ought to do (in your opinion) is your failing, not that of the site.
His views can be unpleasant without him being unpleasant or odious. And we kind of lose the argument when we play the man rather than the ball.
Of course there are some, like Jeremy Hunt, and Teresa May, who show themselves to be colossal hypocrites with unpleasnt views as a bonus.
I have close friends who have rather different views to mine.
Stoatsbrother - the views/opinions make the man.
We can all tolerate a certain degree of difference from our own viewpoint but there comes a point where that tolerance breaks. The man, in effect, is the ball.
Rees-Mogg is a first class ****, whichever way you spin it.
indeed stoatsbrother - I have a good friend who is a died in the wool tory unionst out of the EU type. I just don't discuss politics with him - but he is not in a position of power nor is he anti equal rights.
Hitler apparently was kind to animals and loved children
I invoke Godwins law!
[quote=tjagain ]Hitler apparently was kind to animals and loved children
I'm betting he was a dog owner?
German Shepherds actually, no really...
[b]cumberlanddan [/b] Not sure I agree. And in the aftermath of the politics of the last year, I think we should try and stay out of the echo chambers of our own views and seek to listen and understand the reasons for others views. If we start by hating them, we don't listen. I dislike what he believes, but I also disliked Tim Farrons mealy-mouth beliefs.
You're allowed to dislike multiple persons at any one time you know!
People [b]are [/b]what they believe, and if those beliefs are abhorrent to you then that person must also be abhorrent.
Where people make a genuine effort to overcome some nasty deep held prejudice then yeah, they earn some respect. Mogg doesn't really fall into that category.
Rees-Mogg is a first class *, whichever way you spin it.
I think that's a really unbalanced standpoint. Interestingly, several friends of friends who live in his constituency jumped onto a FB thread spouting the usual "class war"/inverse snobbery noise, saying what a good MP he has been for them, personally taking on issues (the kind of issues you go to your MP about) and doing right by his constituents. That doesn't sound to me like a "first class *" as you describe it, rather a committed MP doing right by those who voted him in.
Sounds like what you mean is "I disagree with his views", which is different.
As has been said, STW is almost as bad as FB for echo chamber effect.
Just because someone is a conservative doesn't make them bad, greedy, selfish or any other similar term. It's also very dangerous for the echo chamber to go on the attack - whether that's Brexit voters, UKIP voters, conservative MPs or whatever. Rather than playing the angry virtue signal card, try and engage, discuss, understand alternative points of view and what drives people to hold them. There's no universal truth, try and remember that.
But of course, that's all too sensible for the internet......
andyrm,as a committed roman catholic,I think Mr Rees-Mogg would argue that there is a universal truth.
I find him amusing (like Boris) almost a caricature of a Tory MP, dont doubt the man is smart. However he is towing a party line that extends back to the 1950s.
His ilk are disappearing and frankly the sooner the better as he brings nothing of any value to ordinary people who he probably believes are little more than resource.
Boris Rees David Liam May etc all need to get their coats - please note this is not a party political rant.
A conservative is fine. Someone who consistently voted against equal rights is not. Thats the difference. I can't stand Cameron - but his attitudes to equal rights were in favour of them. Rees MOgg would discriminate against people on grounds of the sexuality. Thats odious
Discrimination against people for their sexuality is wrong - legally and morally. thats a universal truth
He has only voted against Gay Marriage, do you hold Angela Merkel in contempt to the same degree as well?
[quote=andyrm ]Interestingly, several friends of friends who live in his constituency jumped onto a FB thread spouting the usual "class war"/inverse snobbery noise, saying what a good MP he has been for them, personally taking on issues (the kind of issues you go to your MP about) and doing right by his constituents. That doesn't sound to me like a "first class ****" as you describe it, rather a committed MP doing right by those who voted him in.
I need to caveat this by pointing out that I'm not suggesting JRM is a sociopath (I don't think he is a sociopath), but sociopaths can be quite good at convincing other people they have their interests at heart.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was a good constituency MP - in fact I'd expect it of him, because he's clearly highly intelligent and it's something I'm sure he's capable of if he puts his mind to it. Intelligent enough to realise that being a good constituency MP at this stage of his career is something which benefits him. Excuse me for being a little cynical.
It's not even his policies which particularly make me dislike him - his politics are clearly very different to what mine are nowadays. But I've covered a lot of ground politically - not only have I had friends with similar politics, I'd have probably found myself agreeing with him not so long ago.
No, as mentioned above it's his sneering condescension which leads me to think he's an arse. Just my opinion. And I should be able to recognise sneering condescension, as anybody else on here should be able to attest it's something I do myself sometimes (maybe I just hate me?)
Mefty
Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998
Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to remove the duty on the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to work to support the development of a society where people's ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination and there is respect for human rights.
Jacob Rees-Mogg voted against making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of caste
Just a small sample of his voting against equal rights
Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998
He doesn't like the EU, standard Brexit supporting MPs position
Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to remove the duty on the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to work to support the development of a society where people's ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination and there is respect for human rights.Jacob Rees-Mogg voted against making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of caste
Government rejecting Lords Amendments, if you want to understand why, you should read Jo Swinson's speech, she was the minister. As I said earlier, context is key.
And? He consistently votes against equal rights or absents himself. And Remember the tories under Cameron actually introduced gay marriage - but Rees Mogg did not vote for it.
Would you like some more examples of his consistently reactionary voting record? there is plenty there. anti abortion etc etc
The Mash does it again:
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/jacob-rees-mogg-and-david-davis-to-decide-tory-leadership-race-with-cannons-20170725132709 ]http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/jacob-rees-mogg-and-david-davis-to-decide-tory-leadership-race-with-cannons-20170725132709[/url]
Would you like some more examples of his consistently reactionary voting record?
One that stands up to scrutiny would be helpful to your argument, yes.
@tj - nothing will. No matter what you put there will be a reason why it is not good enough. "No true Scotsman" type thing. Have a sit down and a cuppa, go out on the bike, your blood pressure will only go up mate.
I know that Adam. Its amusing rather than angering me. Its funny to watch someone defend the indefensible.
Here we have a man who consistently votes in a reactionary way and against equal rights, whos public pronouncements support this evidence and who is unashamed about it. ( I suppose at least he is not a hypocrite)
Then watching folk trying to pretend that allthe evidence in the public domain means notyhing is rather absurd.
Away to finish cooking tea now - I'll do Moggs public statements later.
No matter what you put there will be a reason why it is not good enough
You're quite right , it is highly unlikely because I have already been through it. I am not sure whether TJ's hatred of JRM is down to his views or it is just another example of TJ's bigotted view when it comes to those of faith.
Perhaps he doesn't believe in gay marriage? Just a thought based on his background and religious persuasion,
When others hold on to beliefs we disagree with, we bracket them as conviction politicians and criticise (and some even bully) those who dIsagree. Funny/inconsistency old world isn't it?
Mefty,I'm pretty sure tj has a faith of his own,you probably wouldn't recognise it,as it doesn't discriminate on the bases of sex,sexuality or income.
